Epa Ignores Risk Of Cancer On Chemical

COMMENTARY

When Ronald Reagan first moved into the White House, environmentalists were watching his every move.

In particular, they were worried about the degree to which he would try to dismantle or stall more than a decade`s worth of health and safety regulations.

Their efforts succeeded in blocking some of the worst proposals.

A new administrator, Lee Thomas, replaced the much-disliked Ann Burford at the Environmental Protection Agency. As Thomas proved to be more attentive to the concerns of conservation and public health groups, the endless controversy seemed to subside.

Unfortunately, many of the environmentalist community`s biggest concerns have not gone away. Thousands of substances used or produced on a daily basis still pose a potential health hazard but have escaped effective controls.

One example is daminozide, a chemical marketed as Alar by the Uniroyal Co. Many of the nation`s 15,000 apple growers apply daminozide to their crops to prevent premature ripening (and therefore make it possible to harvest in one sweep).

The chemical, growers have found, also enhances the color of the fruit and gives it an improved texture. In fact, the shiny apples seen in most grocery stores have probably had a dose of daminozide in their time.

Apple growers have been using daminozide for 23 years, and consumers have been buying their product all along. So what`s the problem? Uniroyal claims their isn`t any.

But public health authorities say they have proved daminozide to be carcinogenic.

In fact, the EPA was determined to ban the chemical last year, saying that it posed an ``unreasonable risk of cancer.``

Three tests performed in the 1970s were the basis for the agency`s concern. One study, commissioned by the National Cancer Institute, found that daminozide caused tumors in rats and mice, males and females.

Children probably comprise the most vulnerable consumer group. That is because they eat more apples and apple-based products than anybody else. The EPA has estimated that kids under 12 are exposed to between two and seven times as much daminozide as the public at large.

But under industry pressure, the EPA backed off its threat to take the chemical off the market.

Tests that were once sufficiently convincing now appear flawed, the agency asserts, echoing the manufacturer`s line. A scientific advisory panel comprised of scientists from around the country convinced the EPA to wait for more conclusive analysis.

According to spokesman Al Heir, Uniroyal has four years to prove that daminozide doesn`t pose a threat to humans.

Meanwhile, the growers aren`t likely to give up on daminozide. Of the roughly 825,000 pounds used annually, apples account for 75 percent. Peanut production consumes another 12 percent.

In the absence of expeditious action by the EPA, consumers have had the option of avoiding daminozide-treated products. One problem, however, is that apples on grocers` shelves aren`t marked for chemical contamination.

As an alternative, some consumers have lobbied food processing companies to reject daminozide-treated apples. A national boycott now includes not only consumer organizations and the state health department of Massachusetts, but also a large and growing number of companies and trade groups.

Safeway, America`s largest supermarket chain, was the first to join the boycott; No. 2 Kroger soon followed. The Michigan and Washington state apple commissions have advised apple growers under their jurisdiction to hold off on Alar. The food processors that no longer use daminozide-treated apples include Beech-Nut, Gerber, Heinz, Seneca, Treetop and Welch`s.

This is a good start. But it ought to be a signal that, even if a reliable study proves daminozide safe for humans, the EPA`s decision last January was not in the public interest.

Until a chemical stands the test, it belongs on the drawing board, not on supermarket shelves as an ingredient in fruits and vegetables.